Persons and Family, This case is under Civil Code of the Philippines Article 6.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 79269 June 5, 1991

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.HON. PROCORO J. DONATO, in his official
capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch XII, Manila; RODOLFO C.
SALAS, alias Commander Bilog, respondents.

Facts: In the original Information filed on 2 October 1986 in Criminal Case 86-48926
of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, later amended in an Amended Information
which was filed on 24 October 1986, Rodolfo Salas, alias "Commander Bilog" (of the
New People's Army [NPA]), and his co-accused were charged for the crime of
rebellion under Article 134, in relation to Article 135, of the Revised Penal Code. At
the time the Information was filed, Salas and his co-accused were in military
custody following their arrest on 29 September 1986 at the Philippine General
Hospital, Taft Ave., Manila; he had earlier escaped from military detention and a
cash reward of P250,000.00 was offered for his capture. A day after the filing of the
original information, or on 3 October 1986, a petition for habeas corpus for Salas
and his co-accused was filed with the Supreme Court which was dismissed in the
Court's resolution of 16 October 1986 on the basis of the agreement of the parties
under which Salas "will remain in legal custody and will face trial before the court
having custody over his person" and the warrants for the arrest of his co-accused
are deemed recalled and they shall be immediately released but shall submit
themselves to the court having jurisdiction over their person. On 7 November 1986,
Salas filed with the court below a Motion to Quash the Information alleging that: (a)
the facts alleged do not constitute an offense; (b) the Court has no jurisdiction over
the offense charged; (c) the Court has no jurisdiction over the persons of the
defendants; and (d) the criminal action or liability has been extinguished, to which
the Solicitor General filed an Opposition. In his Order of 6 March 1987, Judge Procoro
J. Donato (Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch XII, Manila) denied the
motion to quash. Instead of asking for a reconsideration of said Order, Salas filed on
9 May 1987 a petition for bail, which the Solicitor General opposed in an Opposition
filed on 27 May 1987 on the ground that since rebellion became a capital offense
under the provisions of PD 1996, 942 and 1834, which amended Article 135 of the
Revised Penal Code, by imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death on
those who promote, maintain, or head a rebellion, the accused is no longer entitled

to bail as evidence of his guilt is strong. On 5 June 1987, the President issued
Executive Order 187 repealing, among others, PDs 1996, 942 and 1834 and
restoring to full force and effect Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code as it existed
before the amendatory decrees. Thus, the original penalty for rebellion, prision
mayor and a fine not to exceed P20,000.00, was restored. Executive Order 187 was
published in the Official Gazette in its 15 June 1987 issue (Vol. 83, No. 24) which
was officially released for circulation on 26 June 1987. In his Order of 7 July 1987 the
Judge, taking into consideration Executive Order 187, granted Salas' petition for
bail, fixed the bail bond at P30,000.00 and imposed upon Salas the additional
condition that he shall report to the court once every 2 months within the first 10
days of every period thereof. In a motion to reconsider the above order filed on 16
July 1987, the Solicitor General asked the court to increase the bail from P30,000.00
to P100,000.00 alleging therein that per Department of Justice Circular 10 dated 3
July 1987, the bail for the provisional release of an accused should be in an amount
computed at P10,000.00 per year of imprisonment based on the medium penalty
imposable for the offense and explaining that it is recommending P100,000.00
because Salas "had in the past escaped from the custody of the military authorities
and the offense for which he is charged is not an ordinary crime, like murder,
homicide or robbery, where after the commission, the perpetrator has achieved his
end" and that "the rebellious acts are not consummated until the well-organized
plan to overthrow the government through armed struggle and replace it with an
alien system based on a foreign ideology is attained." On 17 July 1987, the Solicitor
General filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration indirectly asking the court
to deny bail to Salas and to allow it to present evidence in support thereof
considering the "inevitable probability that the accused will not comply with this
main condition of his bail to appear in court for trial." In a subsequent Order
dated 30 July 1987, the Judge granted the motion for reconsideration of 16 July
1987 by increasing the bail bond from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00 but denying the
Solicitor General's supplemental motion for reconsideration of 17 July 1987 which
asked the court to allow the Solicitor General to present evidence in support of its
prayer for a reconsideration of the order of 7 July 1987. The People of the
Philippines, through the Chief State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice, the City
Fiscal of Manila and the Judge a Advocate General, filed the petition for certiorari
and prohibition, with a prayer for restraining order/ preliminary injunction.

Issue: Whether or not Salas can still validly file for bail.
Held: The Supreme Court rules that Salas has waived his right to bail in GR 76009
[In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Rodolfo Salas, Josefina Cruz and
Jose Milo Concepcion, et al. v. Hon. Juan Ponce Enrile, Gen. Fidel V. Ramos, Brig.
Gen. Renato de Villa, Brig. Gen. Ramon Montao and Col. Virgilio Saldajeno]. On 3
October 1986, or the day following the filing of the original information in Criminal
Case 86-48926 with the trial court, a petition for habeas corpus for Salas, and his

co-accused Josefina Cruz and Jose Concepcion, was filed with the Supreme Court by
Lucia Cruz, Aida Concepcion Paniza and Beatriz Salas against Juan Ponce Enrile,
Gen. Fidel Ramos, Brig. Gen. Renato de Villa, Brig. Gen. Ramon Montao, and Col.
Saldajeno praying, among others, that the petition be given due course and a writ
of habeas corpus be issued requiring respondents to produce the bodies of Salas
and his co-accused before the Court and explain by what authority they arrested
and detained them. When the parties in GR 76009 stipulated that "Petitioner
Rodolfo Salas will remain in legal custody and face trial before the court having
custody over his person," they simply meant that Salas will remain in actual
physical custody of the court, or in actual confinement or detention, as
distinguished from the stipulation concerning his co-petitioners, who were to be
released in view of the recall of the warrants of arrest against them; they agreed,
however, "to submit themselves to the court having jurisdiction over their persons."
Note should be made of the deliberate care of the parties in making a fine
distinction between legal custody and court having custody over the person in
respect to Rodolfo Salas and court having jurisdiction over the persons of his coaccused. Such a fine distinction was precisely intended to emphasize the agreement
that Rodolfo Salas will not be released, but should remain in custody. Had the
parties intended otherwise, or had this been unclear to Salas and his counsel, they
should have insisted on the use of a clearer language. It must be remembered that
at the time the parties orally manifested before the Supreme Court on 14 October
1986 the terms and conditions of their agreement and prepared and signed the Joint
Manifestation and Motion, a warrant of arrest had already been issued by the trial
court against Salas and his co-accused. The stipulation that only the warrants of
arrest for Josefina Cruz and Jose Milo Concepcion shall be recalled and that only they
shall be released, further confirmed the agreement that Salas shall remain in
custody of the law, or detention or confinement. Consequently, having agreed in GR
76009 to remain in legal custody, Salas had unequivocably waived his right to bail.